LAND RIGHTS IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

Access to land and resources in southern Africa is perhaps the most socially
and politically sensitive issue, now being entangled in environmental and political
agendas. Minority individual tenure and state-based conservation practices were
imposed on land which was traditionally owned by indigenous people, and most
of the black populations were removed and confined to areas insufficient in
extent or quality to meet production requirements, as detailed in Box
2f.5. Although colonial and post-colonial apartheid policies have largely
been replaced, or are in the process of transformation, ownership and access
to resources is now largely determined by economic status, with commercial farmers
occupying the best farmland and contributing most visibly to the economies.
For example, in Zimbabwe, a minority of 4 500 mainly white commercial farmers
control more than 33 per cent of the country's prime agricultural land.

Box 2f.5 Colonial influences on land rights in Southern
Africa

Colonial policies on land tenure and access influenced patterns
of land use and management in several ways in southern Africa. Shifting
cultivation was seen as destructive to forests, for example, and
legislation creating forest reserves was passed, leaving farmers
with little option but to intensify production from existing cultivated
or grazing areas. The traditional communal land tenure system was
perceived to be insecure and a further cause of environmental degradation
and, therefore, land was either leased from the state or privatized.
It has since been acknowledged that state or private ownership can
be just as harmful to the natural resource base, and extensive land
tenure reforms are underway, with a greater recognition of indigenous
rights and practices, as well as a greater appreciation of the role
of women in agriculture.

Source: Annersten 1989

Land inequities were, until recently, most extreme in South Africa, where
some 70 000 white farmers owned 87 per cent of the arable land, and 2
million black subsistence farmers were restricted to 13 per cent of the
land

Land inequities were, until recently, most extreme in South Africa, where some
70 000 white farmers owned 87 per cent of the arable land, and 2 million black
subsistence farmers were restricted to 13 per cent of the land (Moyo 1998).
The imposition of state-controlled institutions significantly undermined the
traditional and cultural institutional structure for resource management, thereby
alienating the indigenous people from their cultural and governance aspirations.
Traditional tenure security was effectively eroded, and CBNRM came under threat.
Inequitable access to land underlies the food and agricultural problems facing
southern Africa today, and their impact on poverty. Botswana's Tribal Land Act
(1968) facilitated the conversion of tribal land to individual lease for residential,
arable or grazing purposes (DFID 1999). This has led to the expansion of commercial
cattle ranching, which contributes to vegetation and soil degradation, and to
the marginalization of traditional hunter-gatherer communities, such as the
Bushmen. The traditional authority of the chiefs has been replaced by a Land
Board and its Board Secretariat, a Technical Committee and Land Officers (DFID
1999). Land Rights issues in southern Africa are manifest in increasing pressure
on resources, land-based conflict, and pressure for rural development and land
reform. In Zimbabwe, the conflict over land encompasses ancestral claims, claims
by veterans of the independence war and gender imbalances.

In response, most countries of southern Africa are developing new policies,
through reorganization and transformation, in order to address the needs of
previously disadvantaged masses. A number of strategies were adopted, in order
to achieve the objectives of land reform, including land redistribution and
resettlement programmes. For example, in Zimbabwe, the government plans to acquire
5 million ha of the total 11.3 million ha of land belonging to the commercial
sector, in order to complete its resettlement programme. Following land identification
and planning, selected groups are to be resettled according to six different
models, covering mixed farming, specialized farming and ranching (Government
of Zimbabwe 1998). However, there have been significant delays and, of the targeted
160 000 families aimed for resettlement, only 60 000 had been resettled by 1988
(African Development Bank 1993). Other policy instruments that have been used
include five-year national development plans to reorganize communal areas by
agricultural potential. These plans presented options for sustainable and viable
agricultural production, in an attempt to alleviate fears of falling agricultural
productivity levels and economic recession.

In South Africa, the land reform process has attempted to provide for tenure,
use and access rights that are either individual or group-based, with existing
or new community organizations qualifying for such rights on the basis of demonstrable
public support. Land Rights Officers are proposed, in order to ensure the participation
of all stakeholders in decision making, and Land Rights Boards will arbitrate
in the event of disputes and will make recommendations to the Minister (DFID
1999). Implementation is in the early stages, however, and assessments of effectiveness
would currently be premature. In Mozambique, the 1998 Land Law is beginning
to be implemented, following an extensive public awareness and discussion programme.
Surveys to register land rights have commenced in certain areas, and verbal
testimony to tenure under customary law is sufficient to register tenure rights
under the new law (DFID 1999).

In many countries, land reform processes have been strengthened by the creation
of central agencies, such as government departments for land, agriculture, local
government and resource development. These institutions provide land, credit
facilities, and a range of technical and professional services.

The current mixture of land tenure systems allows varying degrees of access
to resources by women. Under the private freehold system, women have rights
to access land, but very few of them have the resources to purchase such land
on the open market. On the other hand, communal land held under the traditional
or customary system allows women secondary access through marriage but, as soon
as the marriage breaks, they lose the right to cultivate lineage land (SARDCWIDSAA
2000). However, through processes of land reform, liberalization and improved
status of women, women are slowly beginning to control a sizeable proportion
of rented, purchased and allocated land.